An interventional study of Normative Feedback and Inhibitory Control Training in Alcohol Use Disorder, sponsored by Craig Rush. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 21 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-01-29.
Sponsored by Craig Rush · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive training over mTurk. Subjects will be randomized to a 1) inhibitory control training condition, 2) working memory training condition, or 3) control training condition. Recent studies have also demonstrated the feasibility and potential efficacy of delivering brief normative feedback to reduce alcohol consumption through mTurk. In these brief interventions, subjects are provided information about their drinking compared to their same age and gendered peers. Approximately half of the subjects in each cognitive training group will receive normative feedback to evaluate effects on alcohol consumption and possible interactions with cognitive training. This study will focus on alcohol use given the ease and clinical acceptance of alcohol use self-report as a primary outcome.
Alcohol use disorder is a persistent public health concern. Approximately 16 million Americans met criteria for alcohol use disorder in 2015, with the annual economic impact of excessive drinking estimated at $250 billion. Alcohol use can also interact with other licit (e.g., cigarettes) and illicit (e.g., cocaine) substances to increase health risks . At least half of all violent crimes involve alcohol consumption and problem drinking plays an important role in domestic abuse and intimate partner violence . These evident economic, health, and social implications of alcohol misuse highlight the importance of understanding determinants of alcohol use behaviors and developing interventions designed to address maladaptive patterns of use.
Cognitive training to address alcohol and other substance use disorders has received a great deal of attention in the interventions development literature. Training may be broadly divided into two classes: 1) cognitive bias modification and response inhibition (i.e., inhibitory control) and 2) working memory interventions. Inhibitory control training attempts to retrain prepotent responses away from drug-related cues by specifically pairing those cues with no-go signals in training tasks. Working memory training uses cognitive-behavioral tasks (e.g., letter/digit strings, visual search, n-back) to improve information maintenance and manipulation. These brief interventions hold particular appeal because they may be easily incorporated into comprehensive approaches to substance use treatment. For example, cognitive improvements due to brief training may improve engagement with and attention to cognitive-behavioral therapy and compliance with homework and other program-related activities. Generally speaking, training has consistently demonstrated improvements on the trained or similar tasks as well as related concepts (e.g., delay discounting is improved after working memory training). Improvements in dissimilar tasks or different domains are not consistently observed, however, and clinical measures, such as drug use, have seen mixed outcomes.
A significant limitation of the extant literature is the relatively small samples typically evaluated (i.e., 20-40 subjects per condition). It is likely that the effects of cognitive training are of a small-to-medium effect size, however, the relatively low costs of training procedures mean that small effect sizes may not preclude clinical utility. It is also likely that individual characteristics will moderate the utility of these interventions for impacting substance use or related negative health behaviors. The use of small samples precludes testing these types of moderators with adequate statistical power as does the recruitment of comparably homogeneous samples (e.g., student samples, individuals from a single addiction clinic).
An emerging method addressing these concerns is crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing, such as on Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk (mTurk), allows for the effective and efficient sampling of diverse subjects. We have previously demonstrated a close correspondence between in-person and online findings using mTurk in substance use research providing support for the validity of the resource. We have also recently demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and validity of conducting intensive longitudinal research related to substance use on this platform. Demonstrating the feasibility and acceptability of applying cognitive training methods through mTurk would help establish this setting for future large sample studies testing novel interventions and/or individual characteristic moderating intervention efficacy.
The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive training over mTurk. Subjects will be randomized to a 1) inhibitory control training condition, 2) working memory training condition, or 3) control training condition. Recent studies have also demonstrated the feasibility and potential efficacy of delivering brief normative feedback to reduce alcohol consumption through mTurk. In these brief interventions, subjects are provided information about their drinking compared to their same age and gendered peers. Approximately half of the subjects in each cognitive training group will receive normative feedback to evaluate effects on alcohol consumption and possible interactions with cognitive training. This study will focus on alcohol use given the ease and clinical acceptance of alcohol use self-report as a primary outcome.
Exclusion Criteria:
Control training tasks will include completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender.
Behavioral: Normative Feedback
The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender.
Behavioral: Normative Feedback · Behavioral: Inhibitory Control Training
A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender.
Behavioral: Normative Feedback · Behavioral: Working Memory Training
Control training tasks will include completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013).
The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013).
Behavioral: Inhibitory Control Training
A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013).
Behavioral: Working Memory Training
Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender.
The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control.
A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task.
Alcohol Use
Self-report of percent of heavy alcohol drinking days
Time frame: Past two weeks
Percentage of Sessions Completed (Feasibility)
Completion rates during intervention period
Time frame: 2 weeks
Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire
Total average ratings on a treatment acceptability questionnaire, rated from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater treatment acceptability.
Time frame: 2 weeks
| Milestone | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Started | 76 | 72 | 76 | 73 | 73 | 74 |
| Completed | 68 | 68 | 66 | 64 | 70 | 66 |
| Not completed | 8 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 8 |
| Withdrew: Lost to follow-up | 8 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 8 |
Self-report of percent of heavy alcohol drinking days
| percentage heavy drinking days | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcohol Use | 19.4 ± 30.3 | 16.3 ± 29.4 | 15.3 ± 25.0 | 19.1 ± 29.7 | 19.6 ± 26.7 | 21.0 ± 30.7 |
Completion rates during intervention period
| percentage of sessions completed | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Sessions Completed (Feasibility) | 68.6 ± 35.1 | 63.3 ± 35.5 | 56.5 ± 39 | 66.1 ± 35.3 | 74.7 ± 32.6 | 59.9 ± 37 |
Total average ratings on a treatment acceptability questionnaire, rated from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater treatment acceptability.
| units on a scale | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire | 80.8 ± 18.3 | 75.9 ± 21.4 | 77.9 ± 20.9 | 84.2 ± 19.3 | 81.9 ± 17.3 | 74.6 ± 19 |
Collected over Adverse events were collected over the 4 week study period (2 week intervention and 2 week follow-up). Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | 0/76 (0%) | 0/76 (0%) | 0/76 (0%) |
| Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | 0/72 (0%) | 0/72 (0%) | 0/72 (0%) |
| Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | 0/76 (0%) | 0/76 (0%) | 0/76 (0%) |
| Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | 0/73 (0%) | 0/73 (0%) | 0/73 (0%) |
| Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | 0/73 (0%) | 0/73 (0%) | 0/73 (0%) |
| Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback | 0/74 (0%) | 0/74 (0%) | 0/74 (0%) |
| Age, Continuous(years) | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 34.1 ± 8.7 | 32.5 ± 9.3 | 35.2 ± 9.5 | 35.8 ± 11.0 | 34.3 ± 10.9 | 33.7 ± 8.5 | 34.3 ± 9.7 |
| Sex: Female, Male(Participants) | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 39 | 40 | 41 | 41 | 36 | 30 | 227 |
| Male | 37 | 32 | 35 | 32 | 37 | 44 | 217 |
| Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asian | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 26 |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Black or African American | 5 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 28 |
| White | 62 | 59 | 62 | 61 | 66 | 64 | 374 |
| More than one race | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 12 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Region of Enrollment(participants) | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 76 | 72 | 76 | 73 | 73 | 74 | 444 |
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Craig Rush